No bugs, birds, snakes, worms or mammals were harmed in its execution.
Musings, thoughts, concepts, politics, junk science, atheists pretending they don't have a religion, fact or fiction, truth or opinion.
Why is there so LITTLE critical thinking that we don't realize WHEN we are being misled by biased individuals who have sucked us in to believing their ideas?
This is one very simple attempt to bring SOME balance in an unbalanced age.

Search This Blog

FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage

Videos

Bill Gates and Warren Buffets Comments on Israel

Israel's Remarkable Accomplishments

TRIPS

SouthWestern USA 2005

Fox News: Fair and BalancedSome people, usually those who have not watched the channel, say that Fox News Lies. The only person I have talked to about this yet, admitted that he was simply believing by faith that the videos he saw on YouTube were true. He said he watched it once on a cruise.

And this individual is one who argues with me that my arguments have no evidence! So where is his?

Lacking! His evidence is "He saw it ONCE on a cruise."

Why is there such hypocrisy in some people that require one standard for others and a much easier standard for them? [You will find some of them on Dawkins.net as they don't like to let you argue with THEIR ATHEISTIC EVANGELICAL ARTICLES]

So here are two videos from Fox News. If you REALLY think they are lying and biased, won't you please comment below and PROVE your accusation?

That way we will not have to accept you as the Great Fox News Prophet whose words we must accept on faith.

If after viewing this video you would like to point out why it is NOT fair and balanced, be my guest and email me at cpedley@yahoo.ca to tell me what and why or just make a comment in the comment section below.

Of course SILENCE means you have NO PROOF and your words were empty without evidence.

Rules for Comments

We do not publish ANY links which do not have reasons for going to the link.

You should give your evidence to support your idea and then show a link which backs you up. But just putting in a link and saying "go here to see what I mean".

We do not publish ad hominem attacks, insults, insulting labels or stereotypes. In seeking truth, one does not find it by these immature and primitive methods.

A Common Method of Presenting Evidence

1. State your opinion

2. State your reason

3. Give any specific references you wish which support your point of view. Example of insulting ad hominem attack statement. "Atheists are all hypocrites and use insults when they cannot be present indisputable evidence."

What is wrong? 1. You do not know all atheists and therefore cannot make any statements about all of them.

You could say something like, "The atheists I have had discussions with criticize others and yet do the same things they criticize others for." "Most atheists whose comments I read stereotype all people who believe in Christianity, Judaism or any other form of religion except their own Atheist religion". 2. Calling people names is an ad hominem attack. 3. Putting all people of one group together and making statements about them is a stereotype.

Sound argument is backed by evidence not throwing insults which are like "supposed adults" throwing stones at someone like a kid would.

Intelligent Design Network :: Seeking Objectivity in Origins Science

The Amazing Kindle !

Some recommend the more expensive 3G Kindle in order to reach the internet wherever you are to download new books.

Email Required

I have chosen to require a Google account. This is to help prevent mindless comments which need not be considered by those who have one.

I promise I will keep your personal information secret and only use it for purpose of communicating with YOU personally. If what you have to say is important then you should have no objection. If it is a haphazard comment, then perhaps it does not deserve to be published anyway.

Not to discourage but we need to be able to tell you directly why your comment was not published so you can bring it up to the acceptable standards for this site.

Flaming is not allowed. Emotional baggage should be left at home or on the psychiatrists couch. If you cannot speak civilly without it, then perhaps look into fixing that first and come back. We are not referring to mild teasing.

Comments with no evidence that require me to simply believe in the faith of you saying it will NOT be published. Anyone can have their opinion but we are looking for facts when we discuss factual topics such as atheism and ID.

Flaming includes insults, sarcasm, and resorting to emotional outbursts to avoid answering a point. There can be no reasonable discussion with someone who has a flamethrower aimed at you (:-)

I will NOT as Dawkins.net does, reject your comment simply because you disagree. However REASONS must be given for your disagreement. Don't make me take a leap of faith to believe you unless of course your name is Yeshua of 1st century fame.

Yes we value your comments provided they are civil. If the Google thing does not require an email address I will require registration so I can communicate with you.

Thank you! Have a great day and I hope to hear from you!

Christian Bloggers Network

I Promise

I promise to place here ONLY links from Amazon.ca or other locations which I have read or used myself and I personally recommend them. In the case of product links, all links will be the best products from my research and years of doing computers. .... CharlesFor more recommendations and freebies, see CPEDLEY.COM

Why Make The Same Mistakes?

My hope is that if you see mistakes which I have made, you will NOT have to make them yourself.

Learn! Make your own mistakes. Or better yet, don't!

Nobody has yet paid me for any of these writings so I am not trying to please anyone except the author of truth and me.

Hope you like them but if you don't, that's okay. Someday when you get older, you will ..... (:-) It's a joke! Or ...... maybe not.

Soul Shepherding

Search Canada

Canadian Product

Canadian Links

US Links

Canadian Links Below

What's So Great About Christianity?

Kindle Edition

A Must for Parents & Educators & University-Bound Students !

Plaxo Badge

Rules for Civilized Discussion

[These are some rules which are accepted here as being fair and balanced. It is also why we may delete and not publish your comments if you break them. It is only fair that readers do not have to see a lot of personal psychological drivvle in trying to see both sides of an argument.]]

Good Advice For Discussion

Realize that a dialogue should not be about you, the opponent, the turf, or the superiority but about making the right decision. Accept the fact that you just might be wrong and treat the opposition with respect.

There are two parts to every argument: A position and a bunch of points that support it. Always separate them and be clear on them both. “I support solution A. The reasons for my recommendation are as follows…” On the flip side, learn to identify and separate these two parts in your opponent’s argument. If you can’t do so reliably, ask for clarification.

Never accept an argument that you don’t understand. Ask for clarification.

To each decision, there are objectives (what we want to achieve) and alternatives (how we can achieve it). Are you disagreeing on the objectives or on the alternatives? Make it clear and ask the opponent to clarify their position. This is very important as often there is a lengthy raging battle over easily reconcilable implementation preferences.

Not to belabor this, but…choose the language both you and your opponent understand.

When you make your point, nothing is as effective as the masterful command of the language and use of relevant examples and metaphors.

Often, your opponent will pass his beliefs and opinions for an unquestionable truth. So, be on guard for and readily reject ad hominem attacks (when your opponent targets your persona and not your argument). For example: “I don’t see how this approach can ever work, coming from someone who can’t control his weight, let alone an initiative of this importance!”

Watch out for arguments that say that something is right just because it is either new or old. These are known as ad novitam and ad antiquamarguments.

Don’t fall for arguments that rely on wide acceptance and popularity. What’s right for many is not necessarily right for you, even if the others are in the same industry, market, or building.

Beware of the straw man attacks, which happen when the opposition objects not to your position but to a similar but much weaker and sometimes ridiculous one. For instance, you say: “I am of the opinion that this application will not resolve the issue, because…” Your opponent retorts, ignoring your argument: “Julie, of all people, I wouldn’t expect to hear it from the CIO that high technology is not the way to go!”

Red herring anyone? Watch for arguments with little to no connection to the issue at stake, which are introduced to misdirect the attention of you and the rest of the audience. This also often happens inadvertently.

Sometimes you may lose on the basis of unobtainable perfection. Your way may be the best available but not perfect, while “perfect” is either out of the question or not viable, such as due to prohibitive costs. When you feel that the conversation has fallen into this rut, call a spade a spade, invite the other party to acknowledge that perfection is not possible, and talk about mitigation of the imperfections. You may still lose this battle, but you’ll know you have done your best.

You have probably noticed that in a number of points I advised you to “watch out” or “beware of” or to “be on guard” against various acts of chicanery. It goes without saying that you shouldn’t commit these transgressions either. The Golden Rule applies.

Fair Use Provision

All material here is used for educational purposes only.Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Original material is copyright Charles Pedley and the Pedley Foundation. It may be used by third parties subject only to credit being given to Charles Pedley and a link to http://charlespedley.blogspot.com